The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
The Primary Interview Jamboree: it's a thing that's happening
Sterica
YesRegistered User, Moderator mod
YesRegistered User, Moderator mod
This thread is dedicated to the memory of the Rubio campaign.
Details?
8pm - 11pm EDT on CNN, with a stream available online.
Please note that we're on Daylight Savings Time in most of the USA, so that puts us an hour ahead. Please plan accordingly, and sorry for making you deal with that crap.
What the fuck is this?
All four candidates (and John Kasich) will be interviewed tonight. Sadly, the interviews seem to be one-on-one, so don't expect the candidates to be interacting with each other tonight. With the republican debate originally planned for tonight cancelled (weird that Trump suddenly has free time for this but not a debate), this might be the last televised primary event for 2016 besides victory/concession speeches. How interesting it will be compared to a debate remains to be seen, but it's definitely different to say the least.
I can't say for sure if this really fucking matters in the grand scheme of things because, after eight democratic debates and 12 republican debates, I don't know what else undecided voters can possibly get from these.
Where?
Washington DC, but Sanders will be staying on the campaign trail and giving his interview remotely.
Who's hosting?
Wolf Blitzer and Anderson Cooper are conducting the interviews
Tonight's Players
Clinton is the candidate with the most certain future. She's more or less going to win the primary, and her polling numbers in the general are among the best of anyone here. Most people would not bet against Clinton becoming president, and at this point the only thing that could stop her is those pesky emails via a potential indictment around May. It's worth noting that this is probably unlikely, for whatever reason calms your ideology: either she's done nothing wrong or she's got enough money and connections to avoid jail time. Clinton is the candidate to beat, but it's March and if this election has taught us one thing, it's to expect the unexpected.
Pros: Big name recognition, one of the more experienced candidates, obvious appeal to women voters, does extremely well with African-Americans and Hispanics, has a war chest that dwarfs the GDP of small nations
Cons: Way more center right than her base likes, tends to come off as insincere, chummy as hell with Wall St., hawkish foreign policy doesn't cotton well to a war-weary nation, popularity sank after she personally murdered four American citizens in Benghazi
Sanders is the scrappy upstart that hoped to be the next Obama by winning the primary from Clinton in another upset. It however, does not seem like it's going to be this way, with Sanders below the performance he needs to be in order to win this thing. He can still win, but it would require either a miraculous turnaround in the polls or Clinton getting indicted. I'm actually not sure which is less likely. Still, Sanders has done better than expected for someone who was a virtual nobody in the eyes of the public going up against one of the biggest names in politics, and he's also motivated many youth voters to get involved in the election which may be important in the fall.
Pros: Energizes the coveted youth vote, fundraising plan is appealing to the public, can claim to be a true independent, has some socialist street cred, Trump takes attention away from questionable hair
Cons: Refusing corporate donations will hurt, has issues with minority vote, a little too laser-focused on class warfare, still likes capitalism just doesn't like like it
Trump is the frontrunner for the Republicans, but the primary is a mess. He stands the best shot at getting the nod, but at the same time he may be hard-pressed to get a majority of the delegates due to a very crowded primary and his party hating the fuck out of him. Ultimately it becomes something of a lose-lose for Republicans: either they allow Trump, a candidate who is unlikely to win the general, to take the nomination, or they pick someone else in a brokered convention and risk revolt from pissed off Trump fans. The biggest Trump question is if hatred of a Clinton presidency will be enough to bring Republicans back together in time for the election.
Pros: fires up the GOP's prized angry white person vote, he meets the legal requirements for the presidency
Cons: His platform is just saying what white people like: when you poke for substances everything Trump promises seems to hang upon Trump being the best negotiator in literally decades, tearing the GOP apart, vetoing bills may be difficult with such small hands
Cruz is the GOP's last hope against Trump, although he aligns himself more with Trump's outsider shtick than anything. I assume any cooperation with GOP bigwigs is more for his own personal gain than any sense of party loyalty, but the bottom line is that Cruz is your final anti-Trump candidate. Unfortunately, Cruz has a mighty big hill to climb when it comes to delegate gap, and Kasich's insistence on staying in more than likely is taking anti-Trump votes from Cruz. Cruz may be hoping to win a brokered election after delegates are forced to revote with a smaller field of candidates helping him big time. Chances are the GOP would go for someone else, but never say never.
Pros: probably more capable of unifying the party than Trump, big Christian appeal, Hispanic background may be advantageous, seems less smug after months of Trump
Cons: Tea Party to the bone, more regressive than Trump in many ways, has a ridiculous fantasy tax plan, punchable face will poses serious security challenge
John Kasich balanced the budget.
Pros: balanced the budget
Cons: mathematically has no way of winning the primary
Sterica on
+14
Posts
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
cause if it was just Blitzer, there would be no way.
but if I can get some 'completely out of my reach' eye candy, then that might be worth it.
I'm guessing cnngo again.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
This was literally the first time I had heard of her.
Doubt I'll tune in this time but I'll keep an eye on the thread in case something ridiculous happens, like Trump busting into Hillary's interview.
If everybody was on the same stage I would at least probably get to see Sanders and Hillary putting up a united front against the despicable claptrap on the right.
She's a perennial candidate in Massachusetts. The Green Rainbow party is far enough left that even Massachusetts liberals collectively say "Oh come on." In 2006, the candidate for Lt Gov was a black, bisexual woman who was unable to speak understandably, work or walk due to cerebral palsy (she had a state provided nurse care for her 16 hours a day) who had never held office or studied government or law. Its not a party taken seriously
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
*Cruz part*
...
"Cruz, what you're saying has been debunked by--"
"No, that's wrong, I'm right because blah blah blah"
"Are these comments about women true?"
"yeah but that was showbiz. And Rosie O'Donnell."
meanwhile he's got his own legal woes
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Despite Trump being ratings dynamite CNN continues to fail.
i was expecting him to be that last one out, with CNN hoping people would watch the entire thing just waiting for him to get his turn.
Also he says he has a "narrow" path to victory, which I guess is true!
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Doesn't Saudi Arabia also do a lot of horrible things since their leadership is brutal and regressive?
I mean maybe they aren't relatively terrible, but I don't think you can really give wholehearted praise of Saudi Arabia.
The Saudis are in it for the Houthis, not ISIS.
The Saudis are one of the principle funders and promoters of Wahhabism, an extremist branch of Sunni Islam that is particularly good at promoting violent jihadis.
Pretty much
Right but that's a separate issue. They're dicks to women but they're also very anti-extremist because they're a fairly authoritarian government.
The Saudi government is very antiWahabist terrorists. There are factions in the country that support it but the government is fairly constantly trying to snuff it out because they know they can't control it if it takes hold. The Saudi royals are much more interested in being really fucking rich than martyrdom and don't want their oil fields to blow up. It's like blaming the US government it Sheldon Adelson is funding anti gay laws in Uganda except if the US made it illegal and was constantly intercepting the couriers
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+